Share this:

Like this:

Related

Amen. I watched my firstborn son get circumcised and swore I would never let it happen to another child of mine again. Then I had 3 girls. Dumbest procedure ever.

Whoever says that the babies don’t feel this pain has never heard the pitch of cry that I heard that day. It was haunting.

I’m not an activist regarding this but I’ve been there, seen it, and think it’s a horrific, dumb tradition. Why we even cling to it in North America is beyond me…just another one of those things we do only because it’s always been done that way.

I watched this show the other day. I was struck by how unnecessary and absurd the procedure is. Yeah, I get it if it is “a covenant” or whatever, and you are devout, but that’s not why most Americans do it. I asked my mom if I had been a boy, would she have done it to me, and she said, “Of course.” I asked why, and she said, “It’s what was done.” And then I asked, “Yeah, but why?” *Long pause* No answer.

So what if its a “covenant” or parents are “devout” — is the baby part of this covenant ? Also I’m sure the child is not devout about anything in his life yet, these excuses are horrible excuses. Cutting, removing, something from someone(for no med. reason) without their consent is wrong, fundamentally wrong, there is no way around that truth.

I have two intact sons, and watching this video makes me sick!! My father was not circumcised and never had any problems, so I saw no need to inflict intense pain on my three-hour old newborn sons. One would hope that if people actually knew WHY this procedure originated, they would see it for what it is: foolish and unnecessary. It seems to stem from good old fashioned machismo and modern day supporters have tried to authenticate it with medical statistics. I don’t buy those either!

I don’t mean to brand all atheists this way, but I’m simply pointing out that he’s not exactly what he claims he aspires to be, and sadly, many atheists who feel they are above the pettiness of religious folks are truly mired in it.

Can’t tell from your post if its pro/con Maher, but he is just calling it as he sees it, there’s nothing wrong with that. From what I can see, he is “tolerating” it, that doesn’t mean he can’t speak out against it

James Holmes, the man who recently murdered several people during the opening show of The Dark Knight Rises, was an agnostic. This is not to incriminate all agnostics, vindicate all believers, or even prove that a majority believes one thing or another. This is simply to demonstrate that non-believers are pretty capable of horrendous crimes, and that religion is not the only motivator to violent action. I’m sure anyone who reads this would be in agreement anyhow, but I simply mean to drive the point home.